It is based on the criteria as I read them"8-9: Hard contact with reasonable safety gear and/or limited to one range of fighting (standup/grappling)." It is optional to participate and is not their primary focus. You can disagree if you wish, but the definition above is met by that class. They also have classes focused around self defense and application. How do you base your opinion? Have you ever been to one of the full contact classes?

"Most people who have spent time doing nothing but forms, with limited sparring, do not understand the differences between full contact, medium contact, hard sparring or light sparring."
Most people who have never experienced anything other, I would agree may not know the difference. I have participated in both Army and Marine Corps hand to hand combat training, Mixed martial art training/kickboxing at Ft Bragg(before there was a definition of MMA), Combat Sambo and Jui Jitsu as well as 9 years at Wah Lum. I did not write the definitions, I did interpret them. Does everyone at every skill level and every class go hard, no, Is there a class where you have the opportunity for full contact, yes.

A lower rating is not a slight against the school. In this circumstance a higher number do not mean "better". It is a realistic gauge for potential new customers to base their decision on.

Someone who is looking for a school that focuses on forms or kata and maybe a little self defense mixed in, will not be interested in going to a school that is rated an 8 in aliveness. An 8 suggests some serious contact and sparring every day as part of the regular curriculum.

I rated a JKD school, that I attended, a 7 because they have a full contact team and every class includes full on live grappling, among other reasons and even then, I was told a 7 still might be too high.

"Most people who have spent time doing nothing but forms, with limited sparring, do not understand the differences between full contact, medium contact, hard sparring or light sparring."
Most people who have never experienced anything other, I would agree may not know the difference. I have participated in both Army and Marine Corps hand to hand combat training, Mixed martial art training/kickboxing at Ft Bragg(before there was a definition of MMA), Combat Sambo and Jui Jitsu as well as 9 years at Wah Lum. I did not write the definitions, I did interpret them. Does everyone at every skill level and every class go hard, no, Is there a class where you have the opportunity for full contact, yes.

You are reviewing the school not a class. We will use your example of reviewing a movie. Reviewing a movie and only watching 10 minutes isn't any better.

That is what you just did. You took an optional class and added that class to the entire school review. Wah Lum by your own words on Aliveness:

There is also a full contact group that meets periodically.

Their focus is not on sparring and participation in full contact classes were optional.

Does everyone at every skill level and every class go hard, no, Is there a class where you have the opportunity for full contact, yes.

One optional class doesn't award an eight for the entire school. The class, especially if they compete, gets an eight. As you've been implying all the way through your posts, sparring isn't the main focus. That alone means THE SCHOOL doesn't rate an 8 in aliveness.

LOL,Good thing I have you here to help me. I am rating what can be trained at that school, if someone wants to go hard they can, but it is not required. There is no definition of frequency of training in the guide to reviewing. If that was a pre requisite to scoring the intensity of training it should have been included in the definition. I am grading the school as a whole which includes ALL the classes. Where I train now they have Jui jitsu/Sambo classes and Kickboxing classes, I attend only the Jui jitsu sambo. That does not mean that the school only has grappling. You apparently wanted me to read the section which I did and then adjusted the review accordingly. If you disagree that is up to you as that will be your opinion just as I have mine. There is no interest in continuing a dialog of pointless banter. If you two wish to review the school, go take some classes and post your opinion. Mine will stand as is.

LOL,Good thing I have you here to help me. I am rating what can be trained at that school, if someone wants to go hard they can, but it is not required. There is no definition of frequency of training in the guide to reviewing. If that was a pre requisite to scoring the intensity of training it should have been included in the definition. I am grading the school as a whole which includes ALL the classes. Where I train now they have Jui jitsu/Sambo classes and Kickboxing classes, I attend only the Jui jitsu sambo. That does not mean that the school only has grappling. You apparently wanted me to read the section which I did and then adjusted the review accordingly. If you disagree that is up to you as that will be your opinion just as I have mine. There is no interest in continuing a dialog of pointless banter. If you two wish to review the school, go take some classes and post your opinion. Mine will stand as is.

I didn't make, ask, or tell you to change anything. I said read the rules and you changed the ratings all by yourself. "Pointless banter" made you change the original rating so, complaining now is quite LOL.

It is obvious that you have a strange grasp on the art of communication.
"Instead of being angry read the rules about the rating system." You disagreed with my review and suggested that I read the rules which I did and revised based off those rules.
I am not complaining about the "rules" it is you who are complaining about the review and your interpretation of the rating system. Thank you by the way for proving my point.
"You are reviewing the school not a class. We will use your example of reviewing a movie. Reviewing a movie and only watching 10 minutes isn't any better."
Reviewing 10 minutes of a movie would be ridiculous. If you watch the whole movie the 10 minutes would be included as well. I am including the class in an evaluation of the school as a whole as it is part of the school. My example of the current class I take does not prove your point. I took part in all classes at the school being reviewed and based it upon my experience. It is pointless banter to continue this dialog with someone who can not follow logic.
Cheers

It is obvious that you have a strange grasp on the art of communication.
"Instead of being angry read the rules about the rating system." You disagreed with my review and suggested that I read the rules which I did and revised based off those rules.

Did I tell you to change anything? I gave you a set of rules explaining why it wasn't a ten. You decided to inject why it should be YOUR way and I decided to explain the rules governing why it isn't an 8.

You took it personally from a school you no longer train at.

I am not complaining about the "rules" it is you who are complaining about the review and your interpretation of the rating system.

Yes, you are as you said it was pointless banter and continue to post.

"
Reviewing 10 minutes of a movie would be ridiculous. If you watch the whole movie the 10 minutes would be included as well.

Reviewing a movie without watching an entire movie is your example which is equally ridiculous yet people do that. If you don't watch the whole movie it won't be included. Yes, people review and judge movies based on 2-3 minute trailers. They also review movies watching only ten to fifteen minutes.

You are taking the optional, non-required class, and saying the school spars at an eight. A small group of people spar like this and it is not indicative of the norm for the school.

It is pointless banter to continue this dialog with someone who can not follow logic.
Cheers

Then quit posting. Oh wait, that would involve using the logic you are complaining about.